I've been reading everywhere how the 360 can't have many people in online matches, yet the PS3 can have huge amounts of people in online matches (eample: mag) 

Why is that so? 

Is it because the 360 developers just aren't trying to have lots of people in online matches or what???

This, if the game and the multiplayer game types aren't designed to work with lots of people then merely upping the player count degrades the quality of the experience and the game is reduced to a giant clusterf*ck.

no clue but i'll bump your thread so someone smarter can weight in. xD

Ok, some sony fanboys make it sound as if games like mag with lots of players in one match are impossible on the 360 and only possible on the PS3

I know Frontlines had up to 50 people but that game wasn't supposed to be very good. And more PS3 games (Resistance 2, KZ2, Warhawk, Socom, MAG etc) have dedicated servers. Whereas Halo 3 and Gears 2 don't. I think L4D did, but I'm not sure.

I belive that the lack of dedicated servers is to blame

Just you can fit more people into the game doesn't mean it's gonna be fun. Imagine Halo 3 with 32 people, everyone would be stealing kills left and right. Anything above 20 in Killzone 2 is unplayable to me.

Oh yeah i know that.  I think Halo 3 has the perfect amount of players....I was just wondering why the 360 doesn't have games with lots of players in matches

Here is why;
1: The PS3 IS better!!!!
2: XBOX 360 uses p2p servers, while the PS3 uses dedicated servers! p2p is rubbish and is only mainly used for file transfers and downloads, it will never be good for online gaming! I can't belive you pay money for crappy servers while we get top of the range servers for free!

Um its pretty obvious why i pay for xbox live...HALO 3!!!!   better than the PS3 itself!   And the ONLY time it lags in anything is when someone has a bad connection or they are cheating (lag switch)